Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:55:23 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95944 times)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:25:13 PM
 #1221

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
1481100923
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100923

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100923
Reply with quote  #2

1481100923
Report to moderator
1481100923
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100923

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100923
Reply with quote  #2

1481100923
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
 #1222

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Fantastic.  The free market will save them so that only rich people will have nukes.  Terrorist will have to have some class in your utopia.  Love it!

Remind me; was Osama bin Ladin a billionaire?  Just asking as I am sure he would have wanted to buy one or two for his friends to carry while the sail to New York.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:26:51 PM
 #1223

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

My friends and a lot of people like me disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Then either I was in the wrong, and it is up to me to choose whether to agree with what you did and accept the new standard, OR to work extra hard to make my business be more wuccesfull than yours so I can beat you down in the market and force you to follow my new standard. Competition.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:27:01 PM
 #1224

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy...

Right, because nobody can ever pool their money. It's always one person.

*facepalm*
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:27:31 PM
 #1225

What are you talking about?  Tuscon isn't a dream city.  Its real.  It exists.  And you would allow the possession of nukes there.  Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

Or is it possible that giving Jared Laughner the right to own a nuke is just a bad idea?

The conversion of a city from statism to anarchism rather than the formation of a city under anarchism are completely different things.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

Your friends will either be just as dishonest as you or they'll quit being your friends after you screw them over. Also, how are you going to keep making money when nobody trusts you and will do business with you? You won't.

Or they will simply disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Yet again you avoid the issue. Nobody will own nuclear bombs because nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed. Nobody will do business with people that don't abide by respectable courts. This are bullshit fantasy issues inflated way beyond any possibly likelihood of occurring. You've got nothing.

You are the one fantasising about giving people the right to nukes and as you say yourself "nobody will want to live in areas where that's allowed."

So we at least agree that no-one would want to live in your utopia.



We agree that we don't need laws telling people to wear parachutes when they jump out of planes, just like we don't need laws to tell people not to live near other people that want to own nuclear bombs privately. It's a non-issue.

Sorry - saying that the entire population of New York has to move because 1 person wants to have a nuke in Times Square is an issue.  Really, it is.

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:28:33 PM
 #1226

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Fantastic.  The free market will save them so that only rich people will have nukes.  Terrorist will have to have some class in your utopia.  Love it!

Remind me; was Osama bin Ladin a billionaire?  Just asking as I am sure he would have wanted to buy one or two for his friends to carry while the sail to New York.

ZING!

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:29:01 PM
 #1227

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy...

Right, because nobody can ever pool their money. It's always one person.

*facepalm*


Cool... so you just shot down his argument for me.  Thanks.  Cheesy

Do you think about what you're writing before you post it?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:29:12 PM
 #1228

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Fantastic.  The free market will save them so that only rich people will have nukes.  Terrorist will have to have some class in your utopia.  Love it!

Remind me; was Osama bin Ladin a billionaire?  Just asking as I am sure he would have wanted to buy one or two for his friends to carry while the sail to New York.

ZING!

That's a terrible example. Why didn't he have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious United States? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:29:54 PM
 #1229

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

My friends and a lot of people like me disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Then either I was in the wrong, and it is up to me to choose whether to agree with what you did and accept the new standard, OR to work extra hard to make my business be more wuccesfull than yours so I can beat you down in the market and force you to follow my new standard. Competition.

So if I am getting divorced, I can to to a Sharia court, get to keep all the kids and the property acquired since the marraige and my ex-wife can get them back by "competiton"

Unless you mean a wet tshirt competition, she is SOL.  

Doesn't sound like an improvement in how society works to me.

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:30:29 PM
 #1230

That's a terrible example. Why didn't if have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious united states? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!


It didn't happen because nukes are heavily regulated and the half-handful of countries that own them aren't stupid enough to sell them to a guy that would gladly light one off in a city.

You can't point to the current system with all it's regulations and use it as an example of how thing will work in libertardtopia.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
 #1231

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:31:05 PM
 #1232

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy...

Right, because nobody can ever pool their money. It's always one person.

*facepalm*


Cool... so you just shot down his argument for me.  Thanks.  Cheesy

I shot down your terrible argument too. I guess you didn't notice that. Why do I care if his argument gets destroyed while I'm destroying yours? Collateral damage.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:31:10 PM
 #1233

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Fantastic.  The free market will save them so that only rich people will have nukes.  Terrorist will have to have some class in your utopia.  Love it!

Remind me; was Osama bin Ladin a billionaire?  Just asking as I am sure he would have wanted to buy one or two for his friends to carry while the sail to New York.

ZING!

That's a terrible example. Why didn't he have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious United States? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!

Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Check it out before you ZING Smiley

Good try though.  

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
 #1234

That's a terrible example. Why didn't if have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious united states? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!


It didn't happen because nukes are heavily regulated and the half-handful of countries that own them aren't stupid enough to sell them to a guy that would gladly light one off in a city.

So you're saying that even if they are readily available nobody would sell them to maniacs? I guess it's not an issue then.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:32:11 PM
 #1235

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy...

Right, because nobody can ever pool their money. It's always one person.

*facepalm*

Or that Smiley

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:32:27 PM
 #1236

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?

Power.  A nuke gives you ultimate power of life and death over millions and as such the bad and the mad will always want it.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
 #1237

That's a terrible example. Why didn't if have a nuclear bomb if he wasn't under the protection of the glorious united states? You claim without laws he would have had nuclear bombs yet he was in Afghanistan and plenty of other places where it could have happened. Yet it didn't, hmm...

I guess that pretty much sinks that theory.

ZING!


It didn't happen because nukes are heavily regulated and the half-handful of countries that own them aren't stupid enough to sell them to a guy that would gladly light one off in a city.

So you're saying that even if they are readily available nobody would sell them to maniacs? I guess it's not an issue then.

heavily regulated - read before you reply.

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:33:19 PM
 #1238

Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?

By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?

Which only puts nukes in the hands of the wealthy... the same wealthy you previously admitted are the cause of government corruption and pillaging of the common man.

Sounds like a great idea!

Wtf would the wealthy want to own nukes, which are very dangerous, risky, toxic, and expensive to maintain devices, if they can just pay specialist teams to wipe out specific targets in secret, and manipulate the market through media, for WAY CHEAPER? Actually, what's the point of manufactoring nukes in a libertopia, anyway?


Umm... well... for the same reason anyone would want to own a nuke: power.

And L O FUCKING L at black ops, media control, and propoganda being cheaper than just buying a nuke and calling it a day.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:34:34 PM
 #1239

Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I wonder if you realize that places like North Korea aren't part of that? Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

They aren't regulated everywhere. Yet somehow a billionaire couldn't get one.

Your theory doesn't hold water, sorry.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 26, 2011, 10:36:05 PM
 #1240

If I have my own court, It won't find me guilty.  For example, I you are a woman and I choose a Sharia court, I get a better divorce deal that you. 

If you have your own court, that's fine. My friends and I will simply refuse to sell you anything, buy anything from you,hire you, or work for you. Feel free to bleed money till you starve.
If the dispute is dire enough, you can chose between a court or a gun.
If i am a woman, and you insist on Shari a court, I'll refuse, and stay with you while making your life miserable. Or steal all your stuff and take it to escrow that will release it after settlement by a court we both agree on.

Come on.  I have friends too and I could care less about you and your friends.  If I have money, I will never lack for people selling me stuff.

And I and MANY other people will have simply learned their mistake of dealing with you, and will move on, never to deal with you or anyone like you again. How many people still want to use MyBitcoin? How many people are still sticking tens of thousands of dollars into anonymous online wallet services? What government body has set up regulations banning the use of anonymous online Bitcoin wallet services?

My friends and a lot of people like me disagree with you.  That is possible too you know.  Just because you think all laws should work your way doesn't mean that my court is wrong to say it has laws that work my way.  There is no standard for divorce or inheritance law in your world so don't accuse me of dishonesty.

Then either I was in the wrong, and it is up to me to choose whether to agree with what you did and accept the new standard, OR to work extra hard to make my business be more wuccesfull than yours so I can beat you down in the market and force you to follow my new standard. Competition.

So if I am getting divorced, I can to to a Sharia court, get to keep all the kids and the property acquired since the marraige and my ex-wife can get them back by "competiton"

Unless you mean a wet tshirt competition, she is SOL.  

Doesn't sound like an improvement in how society works to me.

That is correct. I would hope that in Libertopia, people who wish to stick to those types of courts and screw their wives will eventually have a REALLY difficult time getting wives, and won't have as many children to spread their stupid to. Likewise women who experience this, or see others experiencing this, will hopefully quickly abandon their husbands, even if at a loss, for someone more reasonable.
Obviously if this was going on under a theocratic government, that won't be an option.

Pages: « 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!